Championships won NOT in the "best car"?

In case you haven't noticed, Massa and Alonso have been team mates the last 2 years. Do I really need to go further?

Not unless you think driver performance always remains constant and can be used as some kind of linear function.

E.g. Frentzen beat Hill and Heidfeld in the same team. Villeneuve lost against both in the same team. Yet Frentzen didn´t beat Villeneuve, when they were teammates... Nice paradoxon.

Between 2007 and today are so many differences: Traction- and Launch-control, different aero-rules, DRS, KERS, Bridgestone´s grooved tyres vs. Slicks etc. (and it was reported that the recent Ferraris were "understeery" whereas it was mostly the other way around in 2007 and also the same goes for the McLaren in 2007).

So just taking the results between Massa and Alonso of 2010/11 and use them 1:1 for some kind of mathematical equations (like you did with your Monaco-example) is just B.S.

I don't think we'll ever be 100% sure if Massa lost it or if Alonso simply raised the bar too high for him.I mean, Massa did give Kimi a run for his money, but the Ferraris were much more competitive (if we compare 2007-08 to 10-11) and there were also wekeends in which Kimi was on another league.

In 2007 mclaren and ferrari displayed almost equal performance.
Ferrari slighly faster but with some reliability problems whereas the mclaren never failed.

The regulations changed dramatically in 2009. The only big change introduced for 2008 was the ban of traction control. Massa's performances relative to his teamate during 2007-2009 remained constant with all of these changes being introduced. Between 09 and 10, the car really didn't change much - what changed was massa's teammate.

The accident theory is bs, massa was almost as fast as alonso in the first few races of the season after coming back from the accident. Alonso was adjusting to the team, new team, new car... You all know the deal.

I don't think we'll ever be 100% sure if Massa lost it or if Alonso simply raised the bar too high for him.I mean, Massa did give Kimi a run for his money, but the Ferraris were much more competitive (if we compare 2007-08 to 10-11) and there were also wekeends in which Kimi was on another league.

I know. It's just another reason why you can't assume that Massa 2007 = Massa 2011. He seemed to be very quick and extremely wild when he started and then to mature into a real contender.

The accident theory is bs, massa was almost as fast as alonso in the first few races of the season after coming back from the accident. Alonso was adjusting to the team, new team, new car... You all know the deal.

How is it BS? Your post is kinda contradicting itself.

Alonso was adjusting to the team means He was slower than his normal self.The fact that Massa matched him while adjusting - is therefore no proof that the accident didnt have an effect.

And if you have three possibilities on whether or not accident affected him ,

1> He became slower2> He remains same3> He became faster

Logic reasoning should suggest Option 1 would be the most common.Option 2 less so and Option 3 finite chance but miniscule .

From the years I have followed in F1, I would say 1979 (between the Lotus, Ligier and Williams Ferrari was not really the best car that year)

Maybe my memory is failing but I think the 1979 Lotus was not a good car, specialy if compared with the previous model (just look how Mario Andretti performed in 1978 and where he finished in 1979. Carlos Reutemann's biggest mistake in his F1 career was leaving Ferrari for Lotus in 1979)

Maybe my memory is failing but I think the 1979 Lotus was not a good car, specialy if compared with the previous model (just look how Mario Andretti performed in 1978 and where he finished in 1979. Carlos Reutemann's biggest mistake in his F1 career was leaving Ferrari for Lotus in 1979)

The best assessment I can make up about 1979 is that Ferrari all year long was second best speedwise behind either Ligier, Renault or Williams but neuther of these teams being the tiop team long enough during the season to decide the title into their favour. There were a few occasions that year in which Ferrari was indeed at level with the top dog of the moment, somites a bit better, (Monaco, Monza) But I really recall that season as the one in which Ferrari was a constant, stable factor ever since the T4 appeared and other teams not consistent enough over that same period or getting the new car too late and sort it out in time (Williams)

I don't think they understood the importance of aero mid season significantly less than in the early part or the later part of the season ;)

There is something to this, though. The cars had to adopt slightly different configurations because of new rules about three races in (between Long Beach and Spain), and I do recall something written way back then that the position of an oil cooler was adversely affecting the M23's aero, specifically the flow to the rear wing. The team changed the position of the cooler sometime early-midseason, and the car was a rocket the rest of the year, at least a match for the Ferrari. And of course, that's when Hunt began going on the tear that got him the title.

There is something to this, though. The cars had to adopt slightly different configurations because of new rules about three races in (between Long Beach and Spain), and I do recall something written way back then that the position of an oil cooler was adversely affecting the M23's aero, specifically the flow to the rear wing. The team changed the position of the cooler sometime early-midseason, and the car was a rocket the rest of the year, at least a match for the Ferrari. And of course, that's when Hunt began going on the tear that got him the title.

Now I see what was meant - I already wondered what went wrong in French, British and German GPs aerodynamically That said and reading the 1976 Autocourse story, I still don't think they forgotten the importance of aerodynamics for a few races just to remember it once again. They just hadn't thought it would make so much difference.

His best laps were partially shown from onboard view and partially from outside. In Belgium, I think he was not driving even close to the limit, it was an okay lap because he didn't miss apexes or something like this but he was not using all the track and was extremely smooth in the steering wheel.

You think? OkeyHow do you then explain that Senna was only 0,1 Seconds slower than Prost in the first sector (which includes eau rouge)despite being clearly slower on the Kemmel straight? Eau rouge wasn´t a flatout corner back then

Smooth on the steering wheel + not going off road is usually faster than correction and going off road.

Not unless you think driver performance always remains constant and can be used as some kind of linear function.

E.g. Frentzen beat Hill and Heidfeld in the same team. Villeneuve lost against both in the same team. Yet Frentzen didn´t beat Villeneuve, when they were teammates... Nice paradoxon.

Between 2007 and today are so many differences: Traction- and Launch-control, different aero-rules, DRS, KERS, Bridgestone´s grooved tyres vs. Slicks etc. (and it was reported that the recent Ferraris were "understeery" whereas it was mostly the other way around in 2007 and also the same goes for the McLaren in 2007).

So just taking the results between Massa and Alonso of 2010/11 and use them 1:1 for some kind of mathematical equations (like you did with your Monaco-example) is just B.S.

It generally is linear, and to just discard it as 'BS' is pure ignorance, when its the best measure we have for drivers. Maybe its not perfect, but its far more scientific than making wild assumptions based on nothing measurable. At least this is measurable and based on something quantifiable.

The regulations for 2007 were quite different, that is true, but there is no reason to assume a driver not on the same planet under 2010/11 regulations would be competitive or even closer under 2007 regulations. Massa is not being outclassed by Alonso because of regulations, he is being outclassed because of talent.

Massa was driving roughly equal cars to the big three names in the grid. He was matching them almost all the time, with off-weekends as everyone else. He was a GOOD driver back then. Give the dude some credit for what he did right.

It generally is linear, and to just discard it as 'BS' is pure ignorance, when its the best measure we have for drivers. Maybe its not perfect, but its far more scientific than making wild assumptions based on nothing measurable. At least this is measurable and based on something quantifiable.

The regulations for 2007 were quite different, that is true, but there is no reason to assume a driver not on the same planet under 2010/11 regulations would be competitive or even closer under 2007 regulations. Massa is not being outclassed by Alonso because of regulations, he is being outclassed because of talent.

But it´s just plain wrong. You can see it clearly in bascially every other sport that indivdual perfomances don´t remain constant. It´s not the best measure, but the easiest and in the end it´s just denies the fact that humans aren´t robots. And btw. i didn´t say Massa is being outclassed just because of regulations. Alonso is a more talented driver. But in my book, Massa drove better in 2007 than in 2010/2011 and regarding Alonso it´s the other way around.

schumacher f*ing raped the whole history of f1, not that it does matter to some.

so massa now is slower than alonso is (in the ferrari). so? you think that was the case back in 2007? 2008?sure, that's a hypothesis. but it's not the truth since no one around here knows the truth. stop stating your narrow point of view as "fact".the only fact about 2007 alonso was equal on points with a rookie and raikkonen beat all of them. on why he did that we can debate thousands of pages.

But it´s just plain wrong. You can see it clearly in bascially every other sport that indivdual perfomances don´t remain constant.

F1 is quite unique to other sports, as driving is a pure and natural skill that does not reply so much on practice and tactics. There is no swing, or forehand to practice and master, speed is not dependant on fitness and training, its more about endurance. Driving comes from within. Schumachers, in his first F1 race, and visit to Spa outqualified his highly experienced team mate by 7 tenths.

It´s not the best measure, but the easiest and in the end it´s just denies the fact that humans aren´t robots.

Name a better measure that is better between two drivers who have never driven in the same team. There isnt one. It's the best measure the only question is how accurate it is.

And btw. i didn´t say Massa is being outclassed just because of regulations. Alonso is a more talented driver. But in my book, Massa drove better in 2007 than in 2010/2011 and regarding Alonso it´s the other way around.

Sure you can think that but it is based on nothing other than assumption. My theory is based on something measurable. And btw what about 2006, when Michael outclassed him, and Alonso almost doubled his points in what is widely accepted as equal cars? Massa suddenly started driving great in 2007,08,09, then suddenly stopped in 2010? And you have the audacity for accusing others of talking BS? Your theory is based on nothing other than willy nilly.

An assumption based on having watched nearly 20 races with both teams in a very similar shape.

Yours is an assumption too, based in some subjective ratings of certain drivers, based on the premise "drivers shape don´t change". A stupid premise that can lead you to stupid things like "Schumacher´s ever been worse driver than Rosberg".

An assumption based on having watched nearly 20 races with both teams in a very similar shape.

You only assume they are in similar shape because you assume, the drivers were in very similar shape. Classic circular logic.

Yours is an assumption too, based in some subjective ratings of certain drivers, based on the premise "drivers shape don´t change". A stupid premise that can lead you to stupid things like "Schumacher´s ever been worse driver than Rosberg".

Its not subjective. Its based on a certainty which is the comparision of two drivers in the same car. I am not basing it on a premise, other than logic. You are the one presenting stupid premises, like drivers having drastic changes in performance for no reason. Its perfectly logical to assume drivers do not change in performance, unless there is nothing to strongly suggest it. It is entirely illogical to assume a drivers performance has changed if there is nothing to suggest it.

For example if you hold a steering wheel straight its perfectly logical to assume it will keep going straight. It would be completely illogical to assume it will suddenly turn left. Sure its possible, but completely illogical. Thats your argument.

1. F1 is quite unique to other sports, as driving is a pure and natural skill that does not reply so much on practice and tactics. There is no swing, or forehand to practice and master, speed is not dependant on fitness and training, its more about endurance. Driving comes from within.

2. Name a better measure that is better between two drivers who have never driven in the same team. There isnt one. It's the best measure the only question is how accurate it is.

3. Sure you can think that but it is based on nothing other than assumption. My theory is based on something measurable. And btw what about 2006, when Michael outclassed him, and Alonso almost doubled his points in what is widely accepted as equal cars? Massa suddenly started driving great in 2007,08,09, then suddenly stopped in 2010? And you have the audacity for accusing others of talking BS? Your theory is based on nothing other than willy nilly.

1. Many romantic words, which are totally irrelevant to the topic. I already showed you, that indivdual performances alter in F1. See Frentzen-Hill-Heidfeld-Villeneuve or to make it much easier Hamilton-Button 2010 vs. 2011 or Webber-Vettel 2010 vs. 2011. Or to add one last example: Should i assume that Kovalainen is on par with ALO because he spanked Trulli, who gave ALO a good run for his money (especially in 2004)?2. It´s inaccurate and contains a false presumption and therefore doesn´t have to be regarded to be closer to the "truth" than different POVs.3. No it´s not any different, because your "measurements" also include pure assumptions - that being that driver performances are always constant, which is just not true. And your last couple of lines aren´t anything i ever said. In my book, ALO and MS (1.0) were and will (most likely) always be better drivers than Massa in my book. But what i completly disagree with is, that the gap between ALO and MAS would´ve always been exactly the same in 2007 as nowadays, which you just used like a given fact in your funny calculations.

You only assume they are in similar shape because you assume, the drivers were in very similar shape. Classic circular logic.

You only assume they were not equal because you´re not honest/smart enough to realize Massa´s driving worse than he did before.

Its not subjective. Its based on a certainty which is the comparision of two drivers in the same car. I am not basing it on a premise, other than logic. You are the one presenting stupid premises, like drivers having drastic changes in performance for no reason. Its perfectly logical to assume drivers do not change in performance, unless there is nothing to strongly suggest it. It is entirely illogical to assume a drivers performance has changed if there is nothing to suggest it.

You need some more years of F1 my friend. You know the Kubica-Heidfeld thing, don´t you? F1 is FULL of things like this. In F1 things change from weekend to weekend, let alone from one year to another. I´ll use recent examples:

Alonso was not in the same shape in 2004 and 2005-06.Hamilton was not in the same shape in 2008 and in 2011.Räikkönen was not in the same shape in 2007 than in 2008.Schumacher was not in the same shape in 2004 than in 2006.

If you´re not wise enough to see this, F1 is not your thing. If you´re not honest enough to accept it, argue with yourself first.

1. Many romantic words, which are totally irrelevant to the topic. I already showed you, that indivdual performances alter in F1. See Frentzen-Hill-Heidfeld-Villeneuve or to make it much easier Hamilton-Button 2010 vs. 2011 or Webber-Vettel 2010 vs. 2011. Or to add one last example: Should i assume that Kovalainen is on par with ALO because he spanked Trulli, who gave ALO a good run for his money (especially in 2004)?

You seem like someone not interested in the truth, but rather looking for every excuse to deny it. Like I said before, performance can vary only in extreme cases and for significant reasons.

1. Villeneuve was a rookie in 19962.Hamilton Button has been constant, both close in either season.3. 2004 is many years away from 2011, of course drivers decline with age

2. It´s inaccurate and contains a false presumption and therefore doesn´t have to be regarded to be closer to the "truth" than different POVs.

Its based on the logical assumption that Massa was just as fast in 2010 as he was 2009. We don't need to go back to 2007 because the gap between Massa and Kimi remained constant. Infact Massa got better since 2007 compared to Kimi. The false assumption would be to assume Massa suddenly and for no reason went into decline.

3. Not it´s not any different, because your "measurements" also include pure assumptions - that being that driver performances are always constant, which is just not true.

Its not pure assumptions its based on a history of fact, and its much more logicial to assume something remains constant, rather that it changes for no reason which is what you are doing.

And your last couple of lines aren´t anything i ever said. In my book, ALO and MS (1.0) were and will (most likely) always be better drivers than Massa in my book. But what i completly disagree with is, that the gap between ALO and MAS would´ve always been exactly the same in 2007 as nowadays, which you just used like a given fact in your funny calculations.

The gap between Michael and Massa was basically the same as it is now between Alonso and Massa. So you either believe Michaeal 1.0 was faster than Alonso or Massa had a sudden increase in performance from 2006-2007. Which is it?

You only assume they were not equal because you´re not honest/smart enough to realize Massa´s driving worse than he did before.

There is nothing to base that on. Pure assumption. All you are doing is making wild assumptions.

Alonso was not in the same shape in 2004 and 2005-06.Hamilton was not in the same shape in 2008 and in 2011.Räikkönen was not in the same shape in 2007 than in 2008.Schumacher was not in the same shape in 2004 than in 2006.

I would say their speed remained constant in all those cases. Once again nothing to suggest otherwise.

You guys realize that there is a circular logic issue going on here.
If the strong argument being made is that driver performances changes from year to year then how are we supposed to be certain the performance of one car relative to its competitors?

What is it that makes us think that ferrari is a better car than such and such or that mclaren is faster than x,y and z? And by how big of a gap compared to other years?

Isn't this always determined by comparing the performance of the fastest driver from each team? But how do we know how fast/slow are they compared to one another if they were never teammates? But if they were teammates at some point, as in the case with alonso and lewis, can we base that experience to compare their cars going forward?

We know massa was faster in 2007 and also in 2008 but we also know that the car was faster? We know it was faster because redbull was not around and massa was starting from the front row and beating mclaren on many occasions. How do we conclude that mclaren was equally fast or that it was not slower?

A1. Villeneuve was a rookie in 19962.Hamilton Button has been constant, both close in either season.3. 2004 is many years away from 2011, of course drivers decline with age

BIts based on the logical assumption that Massa was just as fast in 2010 as he was 2009. We don't need to go back to 2007 because the gap between Massa and Kimi remained constant. Infact Massa got better since 2007 compared to Kimi. The false assumption would be to assume Massa suddenly and for no reason went into decline.

CIts not pure assumptions its based on a history of fact, and its much more logicial to assume something remains constant, rather that it changes for no reason which is what you are doing.

D The gap between Michael and Massa was basically the same as it is now between Alonso and Massa. So you either believe Michaeal 1.0 was faster than Alonso or Massa had a sudden increase in performance from 2006-2007. Which is it?

A. With all these objections (with which i don´t agree in some cases, but that´s unimportant) you´re basically agreeing with the fact that driver perfomances change. And to give you another example, which comes spontaneously to my mind: Compare some seasons between Berger-Alesi and see how it differs (e.g. Alesi transformed a 5-12 "Quali-Loss" in 1995 to a 13-3 "Quali-Win" in 1996, how the hell could that happen? )

B. That´s a great way to score an owngoal. So Massa got better according to your statement, but he can´t possibly become worse?

C. No i´m not, because there are always reasons and i already mentioned one of them (car and tyre characteristics) but there are many others (experience, age, psychological pressure, motivation etc.)

D. That deduction doesn´t even work with your kind of reasoning. If the specific gaps between MSC-MAS and and ALO-MSC were the same, why should MSC been faster than ALO at that time then?

You guys realize that there is a circular logic issue going on here.If the strong argument being made is that driver performances changes from year to year then how are we supposed to be certain the performance of one car relative to its competitors?

We can´t be and that´s the reason why people have different opinions about driver´s abilities.

Just because this situation is somewhat unsatisfying doesn´t make it untrue.

We can´t be and that´s the reason why people have different opinions about driver´s abilities.

Just because this situation is somewhat unsatisfying doesn´t make it untrue.

We cannot be 100 percent certain which is different but this does not mean that most, including the experts, will always use this method that i described on the prior post to rank the performance of the cars in any given year.

Or would you claim that everytime autosport or any other reputable source writes an article which says team A is better than team B, you will always dismiss it because they do not know what they are talking about.. Was it or was it not a general consensuos last year that ferrari was the 3rd best car? If it was, are you telling me that this notion had nothing to do with comparing alonso's performance against lewis and button? But wait, they do not drive the same car - how does that work then?Is everyone in the autosport circle therefore wrong. If people use alonso as the barometer to judge the ferrari for two consecutive years arent they in a way taking alonso value add as a constant, which is what you are totally against or not even considering.

I think the point made is that you always start with this notion first and then add other factors around it to make a sound judgment instead of starting with drivers performance always fluctuating from year to year.

saying that massa is slower now would be like me saying that montoya became slower in mclaren or that fisichella became slower in 06 or that alonso became slower in 07 or that webber became slower now that he is teammed against vettel when he was always known as one of the fastest qualifiers and it has nothing to do with vettel being the fastest teammate that he went up against but the simple fact hat webber lost some of his speed. Do you agree with all of this? Can it be possible, it should all be possible and very logical, that no one should question it, according to your idea.

A. With all these objections (with which i don´t agree in some cases, but that´s unimportant) you´re basically agreeing with the fact that driver perfomances change. And to give you another example, which comes spontaneously to my mind: Compare some seasons between Berger-Alesi and see how it differs (e.g. Alesi transformed a 5-12 "Quali-Loss" in 1995 to a 13-3 "Quali-Win" in 1996, how the hell could that happen? )

Simple, they both joined a new team in Benetton. We need to draw a distinction between vary and change. Im not denying there will always be variations in performance, but that is different to a change, the way you suggesting. There was always a variation in the performance between Kimi, and Massa, each year the qualifying and points, and wins totals were different, but overall, they were evenly matched in speed and performance. That is my point. You need to focus on the bigger picture and not try to knitpick a reasonable and logical theory.

B. That´s a great way to score an owngoal. So Massa got better according to your statement, but he can´t possibly become worse?

Read above. Massa slighting improved but they were always very even. Its also much more plausable to improve performance than to just lose it. You could make an argument that Massa improved with experience, but where is the logic in someone losing performance with experience? Makes no sense its illogical.

C. No i´m not, because there are always reasons and i already mentioned one of them (car and tyre characteristics) but there are many others (experience, age, psychological pressure, motivation etc.)

But those reasons are all pure assumptions. Massa did not change team, the regulations barely changed, he had far more experience with Ferrari cars than his new team mate, his motivation was through the roof to beat Alonso. i accept that under some circumstances driver performance can change, like if Massa had gone to Renault, that would have been a possible excuse for a loss in performance, but none of this applies to Massa, he was the driver with every advantage over his team mate Alonso. Instead of trying to think up every possible excuse, why don't you try to find some reasonable factors that could have resulted In Massa's dramatic loss in form?

D. That deduction doesn´t even work with your kind of reasoning. If the specific gaps between MSC-MAS and and ALO-MSC were the same, why should MSC been faster than ALO at that time then?

Your claiming the current Massa is slower than the version that Michael beat, so that means Alonso must be slower than Schumacher 1.0.

I think the point made is that you always start with this notion first and then add other factors around it to make a sound judgment instead of starting with drivers performance always fluctuating from year to year.

saying that massa is slower now would be like me saying that montoya became slower in mclaren or that fisichella became slower in 06 or that alonso became slower in 07 or that webber became slower now that he is teammed against vettel when he was always known as one of the fastest qualifiers and it has nothing to do with vettel being the fastest teammate that he went up against but the simple fact hat webber lost some of his speed. Do you agree with all of this? Can it be possible, it should all be possible and very logical, that no one should question it, according to your idea.

Yes, that is my point. You should always start with what you know for certain. We know for certain 100% that in equal cars, Massa is much slower than Alonso. From that foundation you are best placed to build your theory.

Yes, that is my point. You should always start with what you know for certain. We know for certain 100% that in equal cars, Massa is much slower than Alonso. From that foundation you are best placed to build your theory.

Also:This theory proves that something happened to Massa somewhere between 06 and 10. What was is it??? hmmm... What could it have been? What could it have been?

Disclaimer:This is not my theory. This is karlth's theory.

The rules and regulations have changed dramatically from when Hamilton and Alonso were team mates, so that could be a possible factor. Hamilton is about 3 tenths quicker than Button though, who was slightly quicker than Barrichello, so thats pretty much the gap that existed between Michael and Rubens. I should refine my theory in one area though. ' Performance' is too vague a term, and is dependant on too many outside factors like dnf's. The better measure would be 'speed', which remains very constant.

The rules and regulations have changed dramatically from when Hamilton and Alonso were team mates, so that could be a possible factor. Hamilton is about 3 tenths quicker than Button though, who was slightly quicker than Barrichello, so thats pretty much the gap that existed between Michael and Rubens. I should refine my theory in one area though. ' Performance' is too vague a term, and is dependant on too many outside factors like dnf's. The better measure would be 'speed', which remains very constant.

And how do you measure speed? Qualifying? Fastest laps?

I'm afraid such comparisons will just end up, as gillesthegenius has shown, in circular logic, which are simply not applicable in F1. Every kid knows that.

Qualifying, but with the previous race fuel system you would have to use race pace as well, which complicates things a bit though.

I'm afraid such comparisons will just end up, as gillesthegenius has shown, in circular logic, which are simply not applicable in F1. Every kid knows that.

If you apply it properly, ie, do the sums right it works fine, which is something he didn't do and you actually took him seriously. A theory relies on rules, you can't use it willy nilly. Anyway we were discussing Alonso vs Massa, directly, which does not rely on other drivers. If Massa is no match in equal cars, then he can't have been a match in the previous Ferrari's unless they were much faster. Nothing circular about that no matter how you try and twist it.

1. Many romantic words, which are totally irrelevant to the topic. I already showed you, that indivdual performances alter in F1. See Frentzen-Hill-Heidfeld-Villeneuve or to make it much easier Hamilton-Button 2010 vs. 2011 or Webber-Vettel 2010 vs. 2011. Or to add one last example: Should i assume that Kovalainen is on par with ALO because he spanked Trulli, who gave ALO a good run for his money (especially in 2004)?2. It´s inaccurate and contains a false presumption and therefore doesn´t have to be regarded to be closer to the "truth" than different POVs.3. No it´s not any different, because your "measurements" also include pure assumptions - that being that driver performances are always constant, which is just not true. And your last couple of lines aren´t anything i ever said. In my book, ALO and MS (1.0) were and will (most likely) always be better drivers than Massa in my book. But what i completly disagree with is, that the gap between ALO and MAS would´ve always been exactly the same in 2007 as nowadays, which you just used like a given fact in your funny calculations.

Nothing really to add, apart that it is far better to be roughly right then to be so precisely wrong as the poster your answered...